Errr, since when is exposing malfeasance and corruption at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ “pro-Republican”?
I would have thought you would see it as pro-American and pro-justice. But then, everyone has to see it their own way.
M
You misunderstand.
You think (or desperately hope) that the report is going to “expose malfeasance and corruption” at the highest levels of the DOJ, because that will help the republicans.
What will you do if the report exposes nothing of the sort?
No. Because that will help justice and America, which deserves a just and correct FBI and DOJ.
Why is this so hard for you? Is it because you think it will HURT Democrats and Anti-Trumpers, and you are all about protecting them?
Whoever did WRONG needs to be exposed.
M
You are still misunderstanding my point.
You beleieve that there exists “corruption” to be exposed purely for partisan reasons.
You can couch your language to appear all for Truth and Justice, but you expect the IGs report to help you politically.
I’m asking, what are you going to do if it doesn’t come out the way you’re hoping?
If the IGs report comes out, and says that the FBI and everyone else properly followed protocol, and no corruption exists, will you be happy?
Or will you start building an even larger conspiracy theory in your head?
1 Like
what does party have to do with it? It either HAPPENED or it didn’t and I want it to be exposed if it did. The only one insisting it is about party is YOU.
What I want is the truth to come out. I certainly believe that the truth is NOT going to be good for the hierarchy of the FBI and the DOJ and that FBI and DOJ was Obama’s FBI and DOJ. I didn’t create that. It just IS THE CASE and seeing how Obama’s IRS conducted themselves it is also no surprise to me that the IG thinks he needs to investigate Obama’s FBI and DOJ.
Do you want to cover up any malfeasance or corruption JUST BECAUSE it was Obama’s FBI and DOJ? What does that make you, if so?
M
No, what you want is your truth to come out.
I have no doubt that if the IGs report isn’t what you guys have been so desperately hoping for, Horowitz will become the newest addition to the “deep state”.
And while your little strawman is delightful, I’m not “covering anything up”. I’m happy to wait for the IGs report (or likely, multiple reports). I’m just not seeing whatever it is that’s made you so confident.
2 Likes
Here’s my prediction:
The report that’ll come out in the next week or so will only focus on the investigation into Hillary’s emails. The IG will release additional reports on the FISA warrants and Trump investigation at a later date.
The Hillary Report will find wrongdoing on the part of the FBI - but not in the way you guys hope. The IG will likely find that by going to the press in regards to the emails two weeks before the election was against protocol.
The IG will likely not find wrongdoing on the part of the FBI for closing their investigation of Hillary, or for recommending no charges.
.
And conservative heads will explode.
I suspect that first, there will be a lot of “just wait for the other reports” - followed by Horowitz quickly being exiled into the “deep state”.
Why don’t you do me a big fat favor and NOT try to tell me what I want?
You’re projecting.
M
Probably Republican media.
Well, the report is out. Is it the truth you were looking for?
1 Like
So, the truth came out. And the truth that came out was that there was no biases on display by anyone involved regarding the investigative work, nor the conclusions that were made. Further, the IG report actually confirms that the FBI was right not to recommend prosecution of Clinton. Now that you have been asking for the truth, and it has been provided to you, what do you think? 
1 Like
It is NOT a report on Clinton’s e-mail scandal itself. It is a report on the FBI handling of it and that is limited.
I’m looking for more, at this point.
M
Yes, the report is about the FBI’s handling of Hillary’s emails. That’s what the report has always been about.
What were you expecting it to be about, exactly?
lol!
10char
The report concluded that Comey’s determination was correct - no charges were warranted.
So now that the OIG has backed up Comey, you are in agreement, correct?
The main meat: Comey was correct to not prosecute Hillary Clinton.
"As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the
prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support
prosecution under any of these statutes for various
reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her
senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified
information on unclassified systems. Critical to their
conclusion was that the emails in question lacked
proper classification markings, that the senders often
refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in
emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to
“talk around” classified information, that the emails
were sent to other government officials in furtherance
of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton
relied on the judgment of State Department employees
to properly handle classified information, among other
facts.
We further found that the statute that required the
most complex analysis by the prosecutors was Section
793(f)(1), the “gross negligence” provision that has
been the focus of much of the criticism of the
declination decision. As we describe in Chapters Two
and Seven of our report, the prosecutors analyzed the
legislative history of Section 793(f)(1), relevant case
law, and the Department’s prior interpretation of the
statute. They concluded that Section 793(f)(1) likely
required a state of mind that was “so gross as to almost
suggest deliberate intention,” criminally reckless, or
“something that falls just short of being willful,” as well
as evidence that the individuals who sent emails
containing classified information “knowingly” included or
transferred such information onto unclassified systems.
The Midyear team concluded that such proof was
lacking. We found that this interpretation of Section
793(f)(1) was consistent with the Department’s
historical approach in prior cases under different
leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to
prosecute former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
for mishandling classified documents.
We analyzed the Department’s declination decision
according to the same analytical standard that we
applied to other decisions made during the
investigation. We did not substitute the OIG’s
judgment for the judgments made by the Department,
but rather sought to determine whether the decision
was based on improper considerations, including
political bias. We found no evidence that the
conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or
other improper considerations; rather, we determined
that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of
the facts, the law, and past Department practice.
We therefore concluded that these were legal and policy
judgments involving core prosecutorial discretion that
were for the Department to make.
Post stolen from @MoleUK from a different thread.
1 Like
So you want another investigation?
There was no DOCUMENTED evidence of bias or improper conclusions. That simply says they didn’t find an email or instruction that said, “We have to save Hillary Clinton from herself”. I’m not surprised they didn’t.
I’d be surprised if they did.
They CLEARLY did find that top officials WERE heavily biased against Trump and they have evidence of that. So, if you’re looking for bias it is THERE. 5 have been referred by the IG.
“There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions…,” the report read. “Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility.”
They also found the Comey was the complete ego-driven jerk that we have all said he was from Day 1, and DESERVED to be fired for overstepping his authority.
As to any discussion that the IG agrees with Comey that it was proper NOT to prosecute Clinton - that isn’t so. He didn’t CHALLENGE Comey’s decision. All that says is that he believes Comey THOUGHT that was the correct decision, rather than an attempt to save her due to his own political bias.
" We did not substitute the OIG’s
judgment for the judgments made by the Department,
but rather sought to determine whether the decision
was based on improper considerations, including
political bias. We found no evidence that the
conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or
other improper considerations; rather, we determined
that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of
the facts, the law, and past Department practice.
We therefore concluded that these were legal and policy
judgments involving core prosecutorial discretion that
_were for the Department t_o make.
M
